Recipe Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 924 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ognized by all parties when they stipulated at the hearing that the
strike of the Typographical Union was :
[O]ver the jurisdictional language and not a strike over work be-
ing done, one employee to another. In other word, this is a
strike caused by inability to negotiate jurisdiction contract
language . .. .
The Board has repeatedly held that Sections 8('b) (4) (D) and
10(k) were intended to deal with disputes involving competing claims
for specific work and not to settle collective-bargaining disputes be-
tween a union and an employer.' As no such dispute is involved in the
instant case, we find, on the entire record, that the facts herein do not
present a jurisdictional dispute within the purview of Sections
8(b) (4) (D) and 10(k) of the Act. We shall therefore quash the
notice of hearing.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
3 Wood, Wire it Metal Lathers International Union, Local No 328 , AFL-CIO ( Acoustics
it Specialties , Inc.), 139 NLRB 598; Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local
Union No. 272 ; et at. ( Valley Sheet Metal Company ), 136 NLRB 1402 ; Brotherhood of
Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local 70, etc. ( Hills Transportation Co ), 136 NLRB
1086; Highway Truckdrivers it Helpers, Local 107, etc. ( Safeway Stores , Incorporated),
134 NLRB 1320. Although Member Leedom dissented in Safeway and Valley Sheet Metal,
he believes that the instant case is distinguishable . In those cases , it was conceded that
there was a dispute between the respondent union and the employer over specific work,
the only issue was whether the union which had been assigned the work was making a
competing claim . Under those circumstances , Member Leedom was of the view that there
was a jurisdictional dispute within the meaning of Sections '8(b) (4) (D ) and 10(k) re-
gardless of whether the union to which the work was assigned had actively asserted a
right to such work . Here, 'however, as noted, the dispute between the Respondent
Typographical Union and the Employer was solely over a contract clause and not over
any specific work in the transler room.
Recipe Foods, Inc. and District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, Petitioner . Case No. 25-RC-1940. January 10, 1964
ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION OF
'REPRESENTATIVES
After an election conducted pursuant to a stipulation for certifica-
tion upon consent election, the Regional Director for the Twenty-fifth
Region issued a certification of representatives in the above-entitled
proceeding on February 6, 1961, certifying District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, as the collective-bargaining representative for
a production and maintenance unit at the Employer's Terre Haute,
Indiana, plant, excluding "the temporary employee," inter alia.
Thereafter, in April 1961, and again in January 1963, the Employer
145 NLRB No. 98.
RECIPE FOODS, INC. 925
and the certified Union entered into collective -bargaining agreements
in which the unit is described in the exact terms of the certification
except that the phrase "temporary employees" is used instead of the
phrase "the temporary employee."
On October 1, 1963, the Employer filed a motion to clarify cer-
tification , in which it requested the Board to find that employees
hired during the spring and summer months for temporary employ-
ment are excluded from the coverage of the certified bargaining unit.
The Union thereafter filed a statement in opposition , contending,
inter alia , that additional employees hired for so-called temporary
employment are covered by the contract under a section thereof pro-
viding that a new employee who has satisfactorily completed a 45-
day probationary period shall have his seniority commence from his
date of hire.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Jenkins].
The Employer , in support of its motion, states, and the Union does
not refute , that the Employer hires no more than five employees in
May or June of each year as a supplement to its regular force of about
60 employees ; that these few employees are retained only through
August or September ; that they are informed of the probable dura-
tion of their employment and are not recalled in subsequent years;
that their employment applications and timecards are marked "tem-
porary"; and that their rates of pay, benefits , and other conditions
of work are different from those of the regular employees.
Having duly considered the matter , the Board is of the opinion
that it was within the contemplation of the parties in their stipulation
for certification upon consent election that all temporarily employed
employees were to be excluded from the coverage of the unit. The
Board is also of the opinion that the summer employees who are
hired for a definite limited period and do not have indefinite tenure
are temporary employees properly excluded under the certification.'
The Board does not believe that the contract clause , on which the
Union relies, can be regarded as broadening the certified unit so as to
bring within its coverage any employee whose employment is in fact
of a temporary nature, even though his employment may exceed 45
days.
[The Board clarified the aforesaid certification of representatives
by excluding as temporary employees all extra employees who are
hired during the spring and summer of the year without expectation
of indefinite retention or later recall.]
iE F. Drew & Co., Inc, 133 NLRB 155.